Just announced in California, a small Google car for cities with no driving controls. Everything is automatic, you and one other person, get in, select your destination, and it takes you there. Conceived as private /public transport, the car will park itself after your journey. Very attractive for heavy drinkers! 100 prototypes are planned.

Imagine, instead of showing advertorials, it will guide you via all possible stores.

If you go for the budget version, it will take you into a shop and not leave before you buy for at least 100 CHF.
Endless possibilities

Oh yes, I don't trust them. A company that is not able to build a bug-free operating system shouldn't build cars.

Nobody can guarantee to build a bug free operating system. I would imagine there will be redundancy systems in place as well as a seperately developed reduced function emergency backup, similar to what already run in airliners, to ensure that the car can either continue in the event of a failiure, or be pulled up safely.

Public transport on a very small scale but with all the benefits of today's private transport such as traffic jams and pollution? Great!

I was thinking more along of the lines of people who are already using private transport. Also, people who find it difficult to use public transport - blind people, mothers with prams and multiple kids etc., and handicapped people.

Btw, I totally support the idea of using public transport as I have been doing for all these years. It just frees up your time to do more useful things than driving and cursing.

I'm very hesitant and skeptical about a working concept, however they apparently have a very good testing track record over the past few years. I would expect to see a few thorough, external, unbiased reviews before I ok it.

I'm very hesitant and skeptical about a working concept, however they apparently have a very good testing track record over the past few years. I would expect to see a few thorough, external, unbiased reviews before I ok it.

I'm actually way less worried about the introduction of this new state of the art technology than I am with the current situation where we have these old, obsolete, unreliable and unpredictable meatsack computers in control.

I'm actually way less worried about the introduction of this new state of the art technology than I am with the current situation where we have these old, obsolete, unreliable and unpredictable meatsack computers in control.

Exactly----part of being 'new and state-of-the-art' is a full ability to deal with each and every meatsack and any conceivable unpredictable move they might make. Yeah, predicting the unpredicable is quite the task, but I don't want to be on the roads if the car are driving like the swiss walk in crowds :P

I was not fond of the test videos showing the car's ability to ''avoid wild life''.

This may be upsetting, but the only wildlife in the US best avoided are moose, elk, horses, maybe cows. The first three can show you where the button is to turn your car into a convertible, permanently.

You just don't want to be at the wheel when that happens.

For deer and smaller creatures you are a greater threat to yourself and others on the road by trying to avoid collision with wildlife. Coast, and do not veer [drastically, anyhow].

Of course each and every situation is different, maybe you can kill them softly. but if it's a choice of butchering bambi, and losing control of your 1+ ton vehicle, hit the gas.

Nobody can guarantee to build a bug free operating system. I would imagine there will be redundancy systems in place as well as a seperately developed reduced function emergency backup, similar to what already run in airliners, to ensure that the car can either continue in the event of a failiure, or be pulled up safely.

Quote:

We’re now exploring what fully self-driving vehicles would look like by building some prototypes; they’ll be designed to operate safely and autonomously without requiring human intervention. They won’t have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake pedal… because they don’t need them. Our software and sensors do all the work. The vehicles will be very basic—we want to learn from them and adapt them as quickly as possible—but they will take you where you want to go at the push of a button. And that's an important step toward improving road safety and transforming mobility for millions of people.

You're pretty close to doing that already, especially on the larger airliners. I remember talking to a couple pilots 2 or 3 years ago who were doing ferry work, and one of them commented that airliner pilots, especially Airbus pilots, aren't really pilots anymore, they're systems managers.

The following 2 users would like to thank Slaphead for this useful post:

You're pretty close to doing that already, especially on the larger airliners. I remember talking to a couple pilots 2 or 3 years ago who were doing ferry work, and one of them commented that airliner pilots, especially Airbus pilots, aren't really pilots anymore, they're systems managers.

Yeah, but still necessary when things go wrong - and they do. I think any airline that tried to do without pilots completely would see sales plummet.

Not entirely convinced about a driverless car yet. I think they're rushing the concept, trying to be the first in the market. I can't see many people enjoying being a passenger when there's no driver in front of them like in a taxi or cab.

Yeah, but still necessary when things go wrong - and they do. I think any airline that tried to do without pilots completely would see sales plummet.

Not entirely convinced about a driverless car yet. I think they're rushing the concept, trying to be the first in the market. I can't see many people enjoying being a passenger when there's no driver in front of them like in a taxi or cab.

Point 1 - I can think of two examples in recent years where things did go wrong, and it's suspected that pilot error made the situation worse as a result of plenty of experience managing the aircraft, but not enough experience of actually flying the aircraft. However that's a whole different topic.

Point 2 - I don't think the tech has been rushed, there's been serious research into driverless cars for 2 decades now. The testing of the google cars has been by all accounts a resounding success and I believe it's now time to start bringing this tech into the mainstream. In fact it's actually necessary if we're going to take driverless cars seriously as only by bringing the tech mainstream can all the final quirks be worked out.

__________________
...allegedly.

The following 2 users would like to thank Slaphead for this useful post:

Point 1 - I can think of two examples in recent years where things did go wrong, and it's suspected that pilot error made the situation worse as a result of plenty of experience managing the aircraft, but not enough experience of actually flying the aircraft. However that's a whole different topic.

Point 2 - I don't think the tech has been rushed, there's been serious research into driverless cars for 2 decades now. The testing of the google cars has been by all accounts a resounding success and I believe it's now time to start bringing this tech into the mainstream. In fact it's actually necessary if we're going to take driverless cars seriously as only by bringing the tech mainstream can all the final quirks be worked out.

I agree, pilots have got it wrong, but they've also saved lives that would have been lost in many cases. But as you say, that's another topic.

How much testing has been done that isn't on a test track though? And how much as been done in bad weather conditions?